LexSAHADU GANGARAM BHAGADE versus SPL. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, AHMEDNAGAR AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
146
SAHADU GANGARAM BHAGADE
A
V.
SPL. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, AHMEDNAGAR AND
-
ANOTHER
March 30, 1970
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND /{, N. GP.OVER, JJ.J
Requisitioning and Acquisition of /11111iovab/e Property Act. 30 of 1952,
ss. 8 and 11-Award as to Coinpensation by arbitrator-Appeal ancl cross-
objections filed-Court-fee payable 011 cross-objections under proi"1;io11Ji• of
Bon1bcy Court Fee Act, 1959-Fixed fe<! "to be paid under Art. 13··Sch. fl
or ad valurem fee under Art. 3 Sch. /:"''
C
Bombay Court-Fee Act, 1959, L 7(1), Art. 3·Scli. I; Art. 13 Selz. 11-
A ward of arbitrator undt:r s. 8 o/ Requisitioning and. Aci{uisition of 1111-
nu)vable Property Act, 1952-WheJher an 'order'- -'Order' under ·•S. 7
lvhether 1nust have focce of decrei!-Cr:oss-pbjectionS whether included in
expression 'nze111orand111n of appeal' in Art. 3 Sch. I-Art. 13 Sch. fl
lVhether applicable to cros~objections.
Lands belonging to the appellant' in Distris.;t Ahmednagar were acquir-
D
ed under the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acciuisition of Immov-
able Property Act 30 of 1952. The appellant was not satisfied with the
con1pensation awarded by
the Special
Land Acquisition
Offic~r. The
matter was referred to the arbitrator
as provided in s. 8(1) (b) of the
Act.
The arbi,tratot increased the compensation whereupon the Special
Deputy C:oll~ctc>r went in appeal to the High Court.
The appellant filed
cross-objections on which he paid fixed court-fee of Rs. 51- purporting to
E
do so under Art. 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court-fee Aot, 1959.
The High Court however on objection taken b)· the State, held that Art.
13 Schedule II was not applicable to the case but the matter fell under
Art. 3 of Schedule j and therefore ad valorem court-fee had to be paid
on the cross-0bjections filed by the appellant.
The appellant -challenged
the decision of the High Court in an appeal to this Court by special lea,ve.
Reliance on behalf of the respondent was placed upon s. 7(f) of -.the'
Bombay Court-fee Act which provided that the amount of court-fee pay-
F
able under the Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order of com-
pensation relating to acquisition of land for public purposes "shall be
computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and
the amount claimed by the,. appellant".
The contentions urged on behalf
of the appellant were : (i) that the award of the arbi,lrator was not an
'order'; (ii) that an order to come within s. 7(1) must have the force
of a decree; (iii) that Art. 3 of Sch. I was inapplicable because it only
referred to -plaints. applicatio11s or petitions (including n1emorandun1 of
G
appeal)• but not ro c'ross-objt'ctions w~icl! wer~ expressly referred to in
Art. I, Sch. J.
HELD : (i) The contention that the awa(d made by the arbitrator
was Something which had no effect
and therefore it could not be con-
sidered as an order,
was not
acceptable.
It iS, true that it is not an
·order .. as defined in the Civil Procedu·re Code,~ the saine having not been
made by a civil court.
But the expression 'order' is not defined in the
H
Act.
The award of the arbitrator is uiidoubtedly a 'formal exoression of
a decision made by ·a competent authority. Further it is a decision biri~-
ing on the parties to· the proceedings in which it is !Dade. The question
\~
t •
'
A
B
c
D
E
SAHADU v. DY. COLLECTOR (Hegde, J.)
147
whether the order in question was executable or not is irrelevant for thee
purpose of determining the point in issue. [!50 C-D]
(ii) Section 7(1) clearly applies to an appeal filed under the Act. It
is not a charging se<:tion. It only provides for the computation of the
court-fee payable.
But that provision makes it clear that it relates to the
computation of a court-fee payable on ad valorem basis. It can have no
connection with any Article providing for the payment df fixed court-fee.
Therefore the computation provided under that provision can only be of
> court-fee payable under one or the other article in Sch. I. [150 HJ
Section 7 (1) does not say that the order under appeal must have the
force of a decree.
It would not therefore be proper to add the words
"having the force of a decree" after the word 'order' ins. 7(1). [151 FJ
(iii) A cross-objection is a memorandum of appeal
in
substance
though not in form. It is a right given to a respondent in an appeal to
challenge the order under appeal to the extent he is aggrieved by that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.